No. Star Trek is. Show me a female character in this movie who won't be romantically involved or depicted as a sex object and I'll give it a pass. I can name a lot of male characters from the last movie who aren't depicted as sex objects and don't have any intimate relationships with any other character.

How much connective tissue will there be between action set pieces? What I have read lately, this film seems like many other action films of late - set pieces punctuated by the briefest of narrative exposition. In this summary, we leap from a father being told how to save his daughter to him being a terrorist. I would hope that the film fleshes out this summary, though I am doubtful. My experience with JJ Abrams films is that he doesn't have a deep understanding of human psychology.

It is curious, some american fans are complaining of Brazilians showing spoilers, but other sites like IGN revealed more things and nobody complained about it. There were exclusive photos of Zach and Cumberbath fighting and nobody complained about it. Does only brazilian is wrong?
But life goes on.

In this summary, we leap from a father being told how to save his daughter to him being a terrorist. I would hope that the film fleshes out this summary, though I am doubtful. My experience with JJ Abrams films is that he doesn't have a deep understanding of human psychology.

Click to expand...

I really can't think of many things I'd less like to see in this movie than a five-minute sequence showing the gradual conversion of some random guy into a minor henchman who dies shortly after.

So it seems to me Abrams understands human psychology just fine. It's all in how you look at it.

the whole chasing scene sounds like what Anakin did in Star Wars II on Coruscant so yet another similar scene to Star Wars. But I will not judge until I see it

Click to expand...

Except:

- They're the ones being chased, whereas Anakin and Obi-Wan were doing the chasing.
- The AotC chase was on the city planet of Coruscant, this is in a primitive world covered in red forests, oceans, and a big ass volcano.
- The AotC chase was in flying cars, this is on foot.
- The AotC chase was set off by an assassination attempt, this was set off by an attempt to rescue the villagers and prevent them from seeing the shuttle.
- The action was focused on one location in the AotC chase whereas the action is split between Kirk and McCoy and Spock, Uhura, and Sulu in different locations here.

So, really, other than all that, it's exactly the same because it's a chase scene involving some humorous dialogue, which has never been done before except in Star Wars and Star Trek.

Click to expand...

We ain't talking about the same scene. I'm talking about this one:

During the Spock/Harrison fight; Harrison and Spock go through several buildings and end up fighting on top of ships flying around the city.

How much connective tissue will there be between action set pieces? What I have read lately, this film seems like many other action films of late - set pieces punctuated by the briefest of narrative exposition. In this summary, we leap from a father being told how to save his daughter to him being a terrorist. I would hope that the film fleshes out this summary, though I am doubtful. My experience with JJ Abrams films is that he doesn't have a deep understanding of human psychology.

Click to expand...

"Is there anything you would not do for your family?"
That's the question

Makes sense. Abrams and posse presumably want to kill someone the audience already knows. Do that cliche sequel thing movies are always doing today like when they killed Rachel in The Dark Knight, Agent Colson in The Avengers, M in Skyfall, and so on in that order. Since Paramount presumably won't allow them to kill one of the principal cast, that really only leaves Pike.

In this summary, we leap from a father being told how to save his daughter to him being a terrorist. I would hope that the film fleshes out this summary, though I am doubtful. My experience with JJ Abrams films is that he doesn't have a deep understanding of human psychology.

Click to expand...

I really can't think of many things I'd less like to see in this movie than a five-minute sequence showing the gradual conversion of some random guy into a minor henchman who dies shortly after.

So it seems to me Abrams understands human psychology just fine. It's all in how you look at it.

Click to expand...

Same here. Some parts of a story can be left to the imagination of the movie-goer. Clarke was an obviously desparte person who made a deal with the devil. If he doesn't follow through, the consequences are certainly terrible for his entire family. That's explanation enough for me.

Though, you still gotta wonder why that's the only method Harrison could apparently use to achieve his purpose.

I mean, that's the only way a bomb could be planted in a public library? A suicide bomber?

Perhaps within story, getting Clarke to do it is supposed to display the extremely persuasive powers Harrison is said to have.